What do you think of this Heritage offering?

[David Atkatz]

Supposedly, Combs went from player-to-player getting this ball signed. It's certainly not hard to imagine that he wanted them grouped by position--outfield, infield, pitchers, catchers, mgr & coaches. It makes sense to me that a player on that team might do that. It does not make sense to me that a forger skilled enough to have produced those signatures would just "go down the roster."

And, BTW, there is a Huggins on that ball.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Supposedly, Combs went from player-to-player getting this ball signed. It's certainly not hard to imagine that he wanted them grouped by position--outfield, infield, pitchers, catchers, mgr & coaches. It makes sense to me that a player on that team might do that. It does not make sense to me that a forger skilled enough to have produced those signatures would just "go down the roster."

And, BTW, there is a Huggins on that ball.

That would be highly unusual (unique?), but I could buy that argument. What I can't buy is the slow deliberate signature of each player, perfectly spaced, same pressure applied. And even if you believe that all of those characteristics, along with the odd grouping method, there's still the actual characteristics of the signatures - at least a few of them are really horrible - how do you get past the end of 'Gehrig'? I couldn't even find one example where the 'rig' looks like the one on this ball. Gehrig had such a light, beautiful signature that it's hard for me to believe anyone could view this one as his.

I have some work to do, but I'll try to post images of the signatures on your ball, next to the ones on this one. It's kind of startling.

[travrosty]

the signatures crowd each other, ruth crowds the signature above it.

would ruth really make a concerted effort to carefully crowd the autograph above it to make room for everyone else, perhaps, or would he just let a babe ruth autograph rip? historically he signed very fast. it doesnt look like a fast fluid ruth, it looks planned and stodgy.

tony lazzeri starts his signature way to the left, on the stamping, why? just so the end of his signature can coincide with the end of gehrigs? why? so the postiion designations can all line up? there was plenty of room for lazzeri to start his siganture farther to the right, but he starts it on the stamp? weird. most of the signatures seem to start in a vertical line and a lot of them seem to end in sync too.

can anyone find any other ball like that? not saying it could be impossible, but i believe in entropy. things tend to be disordered, and over a dozen guys signing a ball, their signatures are going to be more disordered. and not line up so unnaturally like this.

[David Atkatz]

Look. Combs brings the ball to each player and tells him where to sign. It ain't that hard to understand.

[shelly]

You are talking about the 27 Yankees. I would think to have that perfect storm would be so strange that you and I would agree on anything. By the way Richard is Jewish so he would have no chance to have papal infallibility.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by shelly

You are talking about the 27 Yankees. I would think to have that perfect storm would be so strange that you and I would agree on anything. By the way Richard is Jewish so he would have no chance to have papal infallibility.

What are you talking about, Shelly? Perfect storm? WTF?

Players keep signed souvenirs of teams they played on. I've seen Gehrig's personal scrapbooks at the HoF library. He had the player photo page from the 1926 WS program, signed in beautiful, bold, black fountain pen by every teammate appearing there. George Pipgras had the famous 1927 team photograph signed by every player. I could go on. It's not so hard to believe that Combs had that ball signed for himself.

[shelly]

Please do go on. Your background on the 27 Yankees is well known and respected. I just think that this ball stinks.

[David Atkatz]

You are certainly entitled to that opinion, Shelly.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Supposedly, Combs went from player-to-player getting this ball signed. It's certainly not hard to imagine that he wanted them grouped by position--outfield, infield, pitchers, catchers, mgr & coaches. It makes sense to me that a player on that team might do that. It does not make sense to me that a forger skilled enough to have produced those signatures would just "go down the roster."

And, BTW, there is a Huggins on that ball.

If this was Combs' personal ball, why didn't he get ALL the players to sign it? Certainly if some weren't around the first pass through the clubhouse, he could have gotten them to sign later? Several players who are on your ball didn't make this ball.

[David Atkatz]

Maybe he didn't much care for the scrubs. And, except for the sweetspot (and who's gonna sign there? Giard?) there's no more room on the ball. He got the starters, and the major pitchers--the guys he played with almost every day.

Look. The ball may or not be real. I think it is. Others don't. But the observations that the sweetspot is blank, or it's signed in green ink, or there aren't more signatures, or there aren't fewer signatures, or... provide absolutely no evidence either way.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Maybe he didn't much care for the scrubs. And, except for the sweetspot (and who's gonna sign there? Giard?) there's no more room on the ball. He got the starters, and the major pitchers--the guys he played with almost every day.

Look. The ball may or not be real. I think it is. Others don't. But the observations that the sweetspot is blank, or it's signed in green ink, or there aren't more signatures, or there aren't fewer signatures, or... provide absolutely no evidence either way.

Not trying to beat a dead horse, but these types of observations are the only evidence we ever have for authenticating autographs, other than provenance, and no one's interested in checking the provenance for this item.

[slidekellyslide]

I have no expertise at all in autographs, but my gut tells me this ball is real...I do think it's hard to believe that a forger would get the exact 1927 ball for the 1927 team with what little knowledge was/is out there regarding balls...the crowded sigs and perhaps deliberate could be a sign that the guys wanted to make their best signature for Combs, and perhaps he even told them to make sure where to sign and to not make it too big since he had plans to get everyone on it.

Just my completely uneducated opinion.

[shelly]

Dan, I went out to people that you would not have any idea who they are. I questioned them about the ball not what was signed on the ball. Here is there reply.

The 1927 ball was a one year style because it was Ban Johnsons last year and Barnard followed him. There is a newer top logo with the patent date and the cursive logo.
This has been known for 20-30 yrs its nothing new. Any forger would have figured it out looking at the many 1927 attributed balls (including many Phila A's balls) To say its authentic based upon the style of ball is so flawed, I don't know what to say.
These are from people that I trust.

[shelly]

That being said, I have a question to David. Would you buy this ball? No Caveat emptor.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by shelly

Dan, I went out to people that you would not have any idea who they are. I questioned them about the ball not what was signed on the ball. Here is there reply.

The 1927 ball was a one year style because it was Ban Johnsons last year and Barnard followed him. There is a newer top logo with the patent date and the cursive logo.
This has been known for 20-30 yrs its nothing new. Any forger would have figured it out looking at the many 1927 attributed balls (including many Phila A's balls) To say its authentic based upon the style of ball is so flawed, I don't know what to say.
These are from people that I trust.

A forger would have to be an idiot to buy a 1928 ball, as it wouldn't have Johnson's name on it, and he would have to be an even dumber idiot not to buy the one with the 1925 patent stamp. Even if he ONLY had these two bits of obvious information and guessed from there, he still would have a 1 out of 3 chance of getting it right by complete accident. Not bad odds.

Dan - I completely understand going with your gut. If my gut agreed with your gut, my next step would be to prove that it is a good ball (not the opposite) - we need to adapt the Communist approach of 'guilty until proven innocent' (in my opinion), rather than the opposite, Democratic style. The Communist method caught all the guilty and some of the innocent. Not good for human beings, but great for baseballs. If we did this, the ball would have to be tossed in the trash, as there is nothing other than alleged circumstantial evidence - can you get any worse?

The Democratic style would be to assume the ball is real (which is what we are doing here), and have to prove that it is 'guilty'. But we are further limited by the Democratic approach, in that we can't even produce evidence - provenance is apparently disallowable in our 'autographed ball court', as is questioning the authenticators, and as is any sort of forensic testing.

The above is why so many forged baseballs are floating around.